A Word Or Two About Q-Star News, Unskewedpolls.com And Why Romney Will Win

Editors note: About half of this post is recycled content from a recent comment of mine, so if you think you have seen it before, you probably have – but it also has two important aspects – it fits and I am lazy…so there you go. This one is like the Soylent Green of posts.

First of all, I don’t think Q-Star is a pollster – they take the polls that are conducted by others and re-weight them to reflect something that is closer to reality. Most of the polls are using a sampling that reflects the 2008 election even though the 2010 mid-terms did show a dramatic shift in party identification. Now that more people identify as “conservative” or “Republican” according to Pew and Gallup, it would seem to make sense to look at a different model than was used in 2008. Some polls have used wildly skewed models to give Democrats a 11-12 point edge when reality says that it is more like a 3-5 point edge.

The left is casting doubt and saying that Republicans are living in an alternate universe but I am telling you folks, we have seen this before. In the 1980 election, the polls did not start to reflect reality until about three weeks from the election and liberals were shocked not only that Reagan was elected but by the margin of victory as well. There is a difference today, while the media has always been in the tank for Democrats, in 1980 they weren’t fully submerged and sitting on the sandy bottom for Carter the way they are for Obama so it may not play out exactly like 1980 – but I believe the results will be similar.

I don’t know that the 2010 election weighting is accurate but by the same token, I doubt that the 2008 weighting is reflective of reality either. 2008 stretched the rubber band way to the left and the 2010 mid-terms were the reaction to that, it snapped way back. Things have settled a bit now but what is different is the level of dissatisfaction with Obama on both sides.

Here’s what Republican pollster John McLaughlin said to Jim Geraghty at NRO about the power of polls:

How campaigns try to sway polling results: “In a close race, the operatives are trying to manipulate the turnout through their paid and earned media. The earned media includes lobbying and trying to skew the public polls. Historically the most egregious case was the 2000 Gore campaign’s lobbying the networks’ exit pollsters for an early, and wrong, call in Florida. This suppressed the Florida Panhandle and Western state turnout.” (Polls close at different times in different parts of the state, because the state stretches into two time zones.) “In our post-election Florida poll, we found that thousands of Panhandle Floridians heard the call and although their polls were still open for an hour in a close national race decided not to vote. Panhandle voters went two-to-one for Bush. The CBS early wrong call nearly triggered a national crisis.”

On what a realistic partisan breakdown would look like: “The 2004 national exit polls showed an even partisan turnout and Bush won 51–48. Had it been the +4 Democratic edge of 2000, John Kerry would have been president. 2008 was a Democratic wave that gave them a +7 partisan advantage. 2010 was a Republican edge. There’s no wave right now. There are about a dozen swing states where in total millions of voters who voted in 2008 for Obama are gone or have not voted since. There are also hundreds of thousands of voters in each of several swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and others who voted from rural, exurban or suburban areas in 2004 for Bush who did not vote in 2008, because they were not excited by McCain or thought he would lose. They are currently planning to vote mainly as a vote against President Obama.”

From a pure demographic and political sense, it seems logical to me.

What even the “skewed” the polls do show is that Obama can’t get above 50% and Romney leads in the “independent” category by double digits (in some polls but a consistent 7-8% across the board) and he leads in the middle class by a substantial margin. It is also instructive that unemployment is still over 8% and unlikely to change in the last month before the election. These three things (I’m going to aggregate the independent and middle class things together for simplicity) have doomed incumbent presidents in the past and will likely doom Obama this time.

There is another consideration that I think is under-reported and under-appreciated and those are the differing levels of voter enthusiasm – Republicans have it, Democrats don’t. Even Republicans who dislike Romney will vote for him on the the ABO ticket against Obama. I think that the college loan debt ridden and unemployed young folks who cheer The Won on campus will just get drunk and stay at home. I think the leftists who think Obama is a capitalist tool will stay at home as well.  Black Christians are also going to find it difficult to vote for Obama this time as well due to his deathbed conversion on gay marriage. My read is that these three things will depress Democrat turnout by 5-8% right off the bat.

So, these are the four things that I think the election will turn on, and today, I see Obama losing in each area:

  1. Obama under 50% in all the polls,
  2. Romney leading with independents, the middle class and late deciding “undecideds” traditionally breaking against the incumbent,
  3. Unemployment over 8% on election day, and
  4. Voter enthusiasm greater for Republicans than Democrats.

My gut tells me that there are already a lot of decisions made one way or the other – lots of folks are already locked and loaded – but I do think that there are about a third of the electorate who will not decide until the curtain is pulled in the booth. These are the people who voted for Obama the last time, don’t want to publicly appear to be voting against the first black president this time, but they also have a practical and pragmatic side. They know that we can’t possibly withstand another 4 years of this level of governmental ineptitude. Obama’s support among these folks is only kept afloat by the relentlessly negative media coverage of Romney and it’s reluctance to report anything negative about Obama – but in the quiet and privacy of the voting booth, I believe that they will pull the lever for Romney even though before the election they will tell the pollsters that they are “undecided” or “leaning” Democrat and will tell the exit pollsters that they voted for Obama.

If I am right, we will see a large difference in the exit polls and the actual results, especially in the “swing” states.

I could be way off – but I am basing this on my observation of America after not being immersed in the culture all the time. I’ve been living out of the country for almost two years now but this year, I have made several trips back. I have noticed that the mood has definitely swung against Obama in the groups that I have interacted with – unquestionably a small and unscientific sample but I have friends who are saying things today about the President that they argued with me on just 3 years ago. The irrational emotion that was driving Hope and Change is gone – except in the most rabid Obama supporters.

Six weeks to go and we will know for sure if I am right.

Just trust me – I am an ISTJ after all.

30 thoughts on “A Word Or Two About Q-Star News, Unskewedpolls.com And Why Romney Will Win

  1. I am praying you are correct.

    Just as I gain hope, I run into a diehard Democrat, who has no idea their party has changed into this Anti-American/ Anti-Liberty “Borg”.

    And then I lose all hope. Then I realize, they get all their “news” from the Huffington Post & CNN & New York Times. And those entities’ audience is continually shrinking.

    Thanks for renewing hope Utah.

    “We” will be voting.

    • Isn’t it a hoot? It’s the Democrats that are predicting good things for America, it’s the Democrats that have inherited Reagan’s optimism, while the Republicans are bemoaning America’s fate and wallowing in doomsday talk.
      Well, I believe in America, and I doubt that on this election the fate of the nation weighs any heavier than it has in the past. Romney wins, we survive; Obama wins we survive. Obama is a bad President, not an evil one. Only easily-manipulated fools believe otherwise, and that is because they don’t have the intelligence to weigh evidence according to its value.

      So cheer the @#$% up, willya?

        • Was Eisenhower a successful businessman? No, he was a soldier his entire life, night managed a store for a while.
          Thomas Jefferson made terrible financial decisions, and was in debt most of his life.

          Reagan never ran a business, and he was a union president,

          Herbert Hoover was a successful businessman, and Dubya had experience as head of the Texas Rangers, but they have been ranked as two of the worst presidents this nation ever elected.

          JFK had a year’s work as a correspondent, nothoing else in the private sector.

          He can’t pass a budget on his own, dear. Congress has to approve it, and the repubs are in charge.

          • “He can’t pass a budget on his own, dear. Congress has to approve it, and the repubs are in charge.”

            How convenient for you to just blame the House, Greg. And how convenient for you to simple omit the fact that O’Commie could not gain one single vote in “HIS” Senate. Not one. Not even fucking Harry Reid would vote for his stupid budget proposals.

            So if the shitty ass budget that O’Commie wants to push can’t get one vote in the Senate, then just how the hell is it ever going to get to the House?

            But then again … the Senate is Bush’s fault too, right? Is there a blame game checklist somewhere that you liberals share amongst you or something?

              • No, I am going to take this opportunity to go see some patient’s to pay for your socialist lifestyle. Someone’s gotta pay the bills, you know.

                You need to take a chill pill, sit down with a cup off coffee, and look up what I have told you.

                I’m not motivated by Obama’s false syllogisms, and because of that, I see the quicksand he is offering you.

                You sell out to him, and it all looks good now …

                I’ll be back later to revisit what we have discussed.

          • i agree with about 90% my friend. You are absolutely correct……Congress has to approve it BUT you would think the dem controlled Senate and House could have maybe just made an attempt to pass a budget when they controlled both houses for two entire years with a dem president. But we got OBAMACARE. Ugh

      • They sure are Greg. They are selling the “rotten shit” of redistribution/socialism/communism … all dressed up in glitter and gold to the disadvantaged, weak, and downtrodden.

        And the ignorant dolts are buying in to it (again) hook, line, and sinker.

        • And before you offer more platitudes for your response to that statement, let’s clear up a couple of things first.

          I’m certain you will have no problems with the Webster definition of the following words: Redistribution, Socialism, and Communism.

          Redistribution: Economics. the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.

          Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

          Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

          So Obama (and Romney too by the way), supports redistribution. The question then becomes how do we get there. Well, that leads us to socialism, now doesn’t it? Someone has to control that redistribution as it just not going to happen spontaneously. So that means that the government mandates it, and that my friend … is Communism.

          Obama has stated his goals plainly and eloquently I might add, and it sounds good to the massive 47% living in poverty right now … (and yes, Mitt is right). These people will vote for Obama, as it is Obama who has given them nothing more as far as hope to ever raise their standard of living without Communist principles of giving them other people’s money. The main difference with Mitt over Barack is the speed at which they are willing to go to get to your utopia of redistributing other people’s money.

          At least with Mitt, there still remains that “hope” that those of us who do not support this slippery slope of redistributive Socialism leading to Communism can be slowed to a point that some pillar of “liberty for all” (and just not the poor) can be reinstated.

        • and the republicans have basically disowned the poorest half of Americans, implying that they are welfare cheaters and lazy entitlement seekers who live off the other half. I know better; I know how hard it is to be poor, to wonder if you will have a home next week, and electricity with which to cook a meal. I pulled myself up, but not without help, which came as offered opportunities, and not government checks.
          but the main point is, Augger, that the repubs are not uniting the country, but dividing it.

            • Augger:

              When somebody like Greg says that we need to “unite” – he means that we are just supposed to agree with him. He can’t take in that there might be another legitimate position other than the liberal one.

              • Let’s see, I was against the Affordable Health Care Act, I am pro-nuclear power, pro-gun ownership, pro-voter I.D., but I disagree on the tone of the campaign, and thus I am an outcast.
                This is why Romney will lose, because your side cannot abide dissent.

            • look up class warfare and tell me how it relates to Obama.
              Restoring the Bush tax cuts is not class warfare; if it is, then Eisenhower was a confiscatory pirate,
              Just because right-wingers Say there is class warfare doesn’t make it true. They are the ones denigrating the ‘47%’ who supposedly live off the other 53%. They are the ones who called John Dean a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show.”

              check this quote out, class warfare at its finest…
              “It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out,” …. “but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer—the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give. This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.”– Sen Joseph McCarthy

              • And just because a liberal says that it isn’t class warfare doesn’t make it so either.

                Bush tax cuts – any time you tax one group over another in a progressive tax system for the sole purpose of redistribution of that income, class warfare and class envy is built right in.

                So I guess calling Dean that was an insult to all the other “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show” people out there?

                Where does accusing your opponent of felony tax evasion or murdering the wife of a former employee via cancer fit?

                Happily agree with the last comments because it is the elitist liberal eggheads that are coming out of the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and other liberal Ivy League bastions that have screwed things up.

                And if 47% do not pay taxes, then the 53% are paying the freight for the federal government. That is a mathematical certainty. Since we have so much debt and deficits, the money that is collected today is already spent – therefore the people who pay taxes are paying directly to the ones who don’t just as surely as if we wrote them a check.

                “The rich don’t pay their fair share”, support for OWS and “fat cat bankers” isn’t class warfare and a true statement about half of America depending on the other half is?

                • My point, sorry I am that I failed to make it, was that Republicans are just as quick to cry ‘elitist’, and to question a rich candidate’s connection to the ‘People’ as are the dems.

                • That 47% includes everyone who paid into Social Security and is now collecting, it includes soldiers who lost limbs fighting for this country, it includes everyone in prison, including all those incarcerated for non-violent crimes. It includes widows of servicemen, and orphans.

                  And they DO pay taxes. They pay SS tax, sales taxes, user fees at the license office, etc.

          • That’s actually so stupid that it doesn’t deserve a response, so naturally, I’ll do a post on it tonight. But in the meantime, here is Romney’s exact quote from the Mother Jones site no less:

            “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…”

            Even people who depend on Social Security and don’t pay income tax depend on government for their livelihood since SS money is part of the general fund, Greg.

            And oh, yeah. this:

            Greatest number ever of American households receiving some sort of federal assistance
            Greatest ever percentage of Americans on food stamps
            Highest ever level of disability payments
            Unemployment over 8% for 43 consecutive months

            https://therionorteline.com/2012/09/23/we-are-not-in-kansas-any-more/

            • Thanks for making my point for me, Utah. Romney has essentially called the poorest Americans un-American for being poor.
              This is hypocritical as hell, man. On the one hand, Obama is pilloried for causing poverty and job loss, then Romney turns around and blames the people for their plight.
              At this point, I would rather see Obama win, mostly for the head-explosion factor on the Right, but mainly because, as bad as Obama has been, he is the more reasonable candidate of the two.

              • “I would rather see Obama win, mostly for the head-explosion factor on the Right”

                Something to look forward to, for sure.

      • “…it’s the Democrats that have inherited Reagan’s optimism, while the Republicans are bemoaning America’s fate and wallowing in doomsday talk.”

        First of all, it shows how disconnected you are if you think the Democrats have inherited Reagan’s optimism. The big difference was that Reagan was optimistic because his policies worked and by the third year of his first term, the economy had rebounded. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in December of 1982 and fell to 7.3% at the end of 1984. Reagan was rewarded with a second term and by the end of 1988, unemployment was down to 5.3%.

        Republicans are telling America the real story. What they are talking about is the hard choices that have to be made to cure the hangover that has been created by 50 years of profligate spending and fiscal responsibility by all levels of government. Their optimism is tempered with realism.

        Optimism is not what the Democrats have, what they have is wilful blindness – that was clear when a study just found that only 15% of Democrats thought that the economy was bad – in the face of 44 consecutive months of 8%+ unemployment, the lowest workforce participation rate in 30 years, 4 years of declining median incomes, the highest per capita share of the national debt in history and the loss of 40% of family net worth over the past 3 years.

        Their “optimism” is buoyed by unicorns.

        That’s not optimism, that is insanity.

        • Utah, the repubs talk a good game, but when they get power, they are pigs at the tough, just like the democrats. Plus, when the repubs do get in office, the first legislation that they try to pass is social, not economic. Gotta please the base, you know. Reagan found a way to do both, show how bad things were, yet still infect the country with his optimism.

        • Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in December of 1982 and fell to 7.3% at the end of 1984
          Right, you want fries with that?
          Because the peak year for manufacturing jobs in this country was 1979, during the Carter years. Under Reagan, there was a net loss of 1 million factory jobs, and another million lost under Bush.

          • Well now, Greg, that’s not quite right, is it?

            To be fair, not all the employment decline was due to increased employment overseas. Trade deficits remained fairly benign by 21st century standards. Employment declined significantly because of productivity improvements as more and more automation replaced manual labor.

            Where was most of the automation?

            The manufacturing sector.

            In the 1987 to 2007 period, manufacturing value added output has increased by 123% while employment fell by 21%. This suggests an overall productivity increase of 181% for the manufacturing sector, and it would have been greater if the data had gone back to 1978.

            What were we told under Clinton? The Internet and the service economy was where it was at…until the dotcom bubble burst the last year of Clinton’s last term and Bush was handed a ready made recession and 8 months after taking the oath of office, we had 9/11 which shut down the economy for 6 months.

            The Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/) shows that there were increases in median income, labor participation and the size of the labor force after the recession of 1980-1982. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good liberal trope about how only jobs are lost under Republican presidents.

            • There usually is job growth after a recession, which involves job shrinkage.

              btw , that recession;s end was signaled by a sharp rise in river traffic , and a log-jam of traffic at Industrial lock. If the number of locking stays consistently high for the next month or so, it will be a good time to invest, as the pundits will finally get the news after the cheap stocks are bought up
              I will keep the board posted; this strategy worked for me in -92, and again earlier this year, thought this year’s results were skewed by heavy locl construction and a hurricane or two.

  2. But G., for the first 2 years Obama had a Dem. House and a Dem. Senate. And don’t get me wrong about a person’s past experience; I think Obama was a successful book writer; but he seems to be failing at this job. I think Romney has proven himself in a leadership position just as Gary Johnson has. Only thing is, just as no one will vote for Ron Paul, neither will they vote for Gary Johnson.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.